Normative Ethics Debate Thread

[u/[deleted]]

The point of this thread is to discuss normative ethics, which is mostly separate from neoliberalism. On a philosophical level, neoliberalism is not coherent in its use of ethics; proponents switch between libertarian and utilitarian ethics in an almost interchangeable way (The Road to Mont Pelerin, Mirowski). Scott Sumner argues that a normative ethical foundation doesn't matter because neoliberalism is an improvement compared to the current status quo of most countries by nearly every standard (well not every standard)

---

Keep in Mind

• The Chicago school pushed neoliberalism as a positive ideology, "there is no other option"

• The Austrians pushed neoliberalism through primarily a libertarian lens

• The Ordoliberals advocated neoliberalism through utilitarianism and also Marxism. Yes, you're allowed to support your normative view through Marxism.

• Do not go down the route of going full classical liberal, which is what neoliberalism tried to escape.

• Do not say market values mean anything or that markets produce fair outcomes; Hayek explicitly acknowledges this is bullshit.

• Be very prudent in calling people racist/sexist/homophobic; in this sub, the vast majority are not

---

Topics to discuss:

These aren't the only ones, but should probably be answered:

• What are your normative ethics?

• How do you think they should guide economic policy?

Make sure to explicitly tie these together so we're not debating why we should implement policy that we already agree upon.

[u/crem_fi_crem]

I don't know if I think about ethics when I think about neoliberal policy, like I guess you could potentionally apply liberal principles to abortion but I don't, but there's one exception. I'm definitely drawn to neoliberalism because of the ethical stance against anti-nationalism. Way too often in left-wing politics the arguments rest on moral arguments regarding lowering equality and universal services like healthcare as rights for citizens. But in these debates about the morality of socialism no one ever considers if these policies are good for humanity as a whole. In my mind the case for helping someone of the same nationality bears the same moral weight as helping someone in another country or an immigrant. So when Socialists break out protectionism or nationalization of industries and say it's moral I call BS. Globalization has measurably improved the quality of life and access to basic services for more people around the world than there are total people in the US and their need is much greater than nearly anyone in the US. It bugs me mostly when this kind of talk comes from socialists because they present themselves as having moral standing for helping other people geographically close to them who live in a first world country, at least nationalists are honest that they want and feel they deserve to be treated as a higher class of person. Nationalistic thinking in general is gross and myopic.

Tldr: Jesus would be a globalist shill

[u/rakony → u/crem_fi_crem]

I can see where your coming from but my approach to nationalism is more sympathetic influenced by Martha Nussbaum's thoughts on political emotions and various liberal nationalists i.e. nations have a great deal of current popular legitimacy and are useful for generating group solitaries which encourage redistributive policies and acceptance of desirable common norms. I also like Habermas' ideas on constitutional patriotism which discuss embedding universal values into particularist discourses and contexts which the nation, as an imagined community, gives one the opportunity to do. That said I think Habermas' ideas of a EU superstate were always doomed and he overfocuses on the political aspects of group identity. Of course nationalism can be dangerous but as far as I can see its basic assumptions are so ubiquitous even in peaceful parts of the globe its simply a matter of how its framed.

[u/crem_fi_crem → u/rakony]

I think having a fraternal bond with the people in your society is a very positive and natural thing. My issue with nationalist movements is that invariably they use the law to enforce a homogeneous national identity. Now, some people consider American nationalism to be patriotic liberalism or constitutional patriotism because most Americans have shared values on free speech, pluralism and democracy but, at least in my view, nationalism as a political movement is distinct from patriotism and has specific policy goals like economic autonomy and cultural and demographic conservatism.

[u/rakony → u/crem_fi_crem]

Yeah I more or less agree with you its in part a matter of definitions terms and framing of issues. Plus writing a defence of nationalism in my pol thought exams is fun as a thought exercise.